Menu

Our Sisters’ Keeper

“Men are to blame for women’s behavior. The Feminine Imperative only has as much power as men have allowed it to have. Hypergamy (open or otherwise) wouldn’t be the unrestrained social juggernaut it’s become without men’s complicity or accomplice.”

This quote is a go-to rationalization I read a lot from women just coming to terms with their first taste of the Red Pill. Unfortunately it’s also become a common refrain among certain sets in the manosphere; this rationale is usually particular to the moral absolutist strains of the manosphere.

When I read it from women it’s kind of ironic considering it usually comes from women who share in the same moral absolutism, who were “so different when they were in college”, but they’ve had their Epiphany and “got right with God.” They often cling to the Strong Independent® identity for themselves, but turn over a rock and show them the visceral, observable, ugly truth of unfettered Hypergamy and then, then it’s men’s partial or total responsibility for fostering women’s conditions.

It becomes men’s fault for not having the fortitude and presence of mind to correct them when they needed it – never mind the lifetime of Blue Pill conditioning that taught them judging women made them misogynistic assholes. I understand axiom that men and women get the men and women they deserve, but I wanted to explore this blame game dynamic a bit more.

The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.

When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.

As I was writing the Adaptations series it occurred to me that men on the ends of both the Alpha and Beta spectrum adapt their own sexual strategies in accord with the sexual marketplace and how that environment dictates the approach to what seems the most efficient.

As I stated in the last post, Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic, and efficient. However, men’s adapting to the “market” dictates of Hypergamy has to be equally efficient if that guy is to fulfill his own sexual imperative. Pragmatism doesn’t have time for how things should be. You make the best play with what’s in front of you.

Just to illustrate, for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.

Furthermore, the intrasexual combat amongst men for sexual qualification was (at least ostensibly) focused on out-supporting, out-sympathizing, out-emoting and out-identifying with the feminine more so than other men. To set oneself apart from “other guys” the seemingly most strategic tact was to accept what women said they wanted from men. To pragmatically effect this men gladly joined the chorus of ridiculing conventional masculinity; denouncing and resisting the very element that would in fact have set them apart from the nebulous “other guys“.

So while this is an illustration of men’s deductive pragmatism in their adapting to the SMP, it’s also an illustration of how that adaptation can work against men’s best interests. Between the 80s, 90s and into the early 2000s this adaptation involved men following women’s lead to systematically turn conventional, positive masculinity into ridiculous or gay-associations of “macho-ness”. Later, defining the very idea of masculinity would progress from ambiguousness to women being the sole authority of what masculinity should mean to a man.

Women and Moral Agency

For as long as I’ve read and commented on Christo-Manosphere blogs a common thread has cropped up again and again; the debate as to whether women have the same moral agency or the same accountability for it as men. I’ve always found it fascinating because for all my dealing in cold harsh observable facts I’ve never paused to consider that women might have some excusable reason for their ethically challenged behavior. In my own estimate Hypergamy isn’t inherently bad or good – it just depends on whether you find yourself on the sharp end of it.

My point here isn’t to reheat that debate, but rather to see how it feeds into the rationale that men are in some way responsible for what contemporary women have become, and how they’ll progress if men don’t assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors.

Hypergamy is pragmatic, but it’s also inherently duplicitous. It’s unjust and unforgivable to a guy who doesn’t measure up to his burden of performance. When you consider the War Brides dynamic it’s downright reprehensible, but we have to also consider the pragmatism in that dynamic. From a male perspective we want to apply masculine concepts of honor and justice to women’s action – and in the past there was a high price to pay for infractions of it – but are we presuming our concept of justice is one that’s universally common to that of women?

Much in the same way we were Blue Pill conditioned to presume that our idealistic concept of love was mutually shared by women I would propose that men’s concepts of justice, honor, and (from an intrasexual perspective) respect are dissimilar from those of women.

For women, whatever actions serve Hypergamy are justifiable actions.

All that needs to be sorted out is reconciling those action with the concept of justice held by men. In the intersexual arena, what best serves men’s imperatives is justice. Up until the sexual revolution the balance between the sexes’ concepts of justice was mitigated by mutual compromise – each had something to lose and something to gain by considering the other sex’s imperatives.

For roughly the past 70 years this balance between the two concepts has listed heavily to the feminine. Our age has been defined by women’s unilateral and ubiquitous control of Hypergamy, and as such it is women’s sexual imperatives that is biologically and sociologically setting the course for future generations.

Along with that unprecedented control comes the prioritizing of women’s concept of justice above that of men’s. We can see this evidenced in every law, social convention or social justice movement that entitles women to rights and privileges that free them of any accountability for the negative consequence their Hypergamously based behavior would hold them to in a concept of justice that men would have.

I would also argue that women’s inherent solipsism reinforces this separation of concepts of justice between the sexes.

The problem I see in assigning the blame of women’s behavior to men’s lack of control is that, presently, men have no real control nor does men’s concept of justice align with that of women. There’s a manosphere idiom that says women are the gatekeepers of sex while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. I’m not sure I completely agree with that.

That’s not to be defeatist, or an endorsement of a MGTOW course of action, but it is to say that if a man has neither the sex appeal to be a short term sexual prospect nor the provisioning appeal to be a long term investment, women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.

And yes, that’s pretty fucked up if you, again, find yourself on the sharp end of it. Men’s adapting to the intersexual conditions set by women isn’t some deterministic prospect, but the idea that the mass majority of men would be responsible for the state women find themselves in is ludicrous. There will always be men willing to accept the sexual dictates of women because it serves their breeding imperatives. It’s good for him personally and it’s good for the species.

There will never be some global Lysistrata where men organize in solidarity, promising not to fuck another woman until they comply with demands that would place the Masculine Imperative above that of the feminine’s. Our own biology guarantees it.

Personal Responsibility

On a final note here, whenever I delve into the ethical implications of Red Pill awareness I invariably run into the personal responsibility equation. I do my best to make as coldly rational an observation of dynamics I see and allow my readers to make their own judgements. However, those observation are never intended to excuse the behaviors men and women find themselves prone to acting out.

There is always a want on the part of either sex to see their concept of justice enacted on those who would act against it. Thus you get honor killing in the Muslim world, and you have men’s access to the DNA testing of children they suspect aren’t their own denied in the “best interest of the child.”

So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?

The manosphere needs to keep the self-flagellating in check. Men are not responsible for women’s behavior, especially in today’s female dominated political climate. For a man to assume that he is responsible for women’s unchecked hypergamy is to ignore the facts. The average man lives in a climate of dwindling economic opportunities for men, higher incarceration rates, unmitigated divorce rape, and now anti-manspreading laws! A 50th percentile man does not have the clout to check a woman’s impulses.
Even alpha males can be harmed by a woman’s actions. Look at the cases of Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, George Soros (google George Soros girlfriend) for examples. A woman can now summon the full power of the state to aid her at any moment. The justice system and media presume a man’s guilt and take a woman’s word at face value. For the nerds amongst us, I liken it to a Ghost calling in a nuclear strike on an unsuspecting target. Guess who that target is?
When bloggers exhort men to “Man up!”, they’re deluding themselves. with a belief in hyperagency. Dread game, especially financial dread game is slowly losing its efficacy. How can you run dread game when she knows that 100 thirsty betas on tinder are ready to take your spot? How can you run financial dread game when it is considered a form of abuse?
You may be able to elicit a woman’s feminine side and compliance. However, when push comes to shove, you will not elicit any sympathy from the state. And, of course, the state prioritizes women’s needs first.

Tl;dr: It is delusional to think men have the power to keep hypergamy in check considering today’s political climate.

“the Alpha and Beta spectrum adapt their own sexual strategies in accord with the sexual marketplace and how that environment dictates the approach to what seems the most efficient.”https://vimeo.com/31666319

“It’s unjust and unforgivable to a guy who doesn’t measure up to his burden of performance.”

“and as such it is women’s sexual imperatives that is biologically and sociologically setting the course for future generations.”

“women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.”

“Neo: Are there other programs like you?
The Oracle: Oh, well, not like me. But… look, see those birds? At some point a program was written to govern them. A program was written to watch over the trees, and the wind, the sunrise, and sunset. There are programs running all over the place. The ones doing their job, doing what they were meant to do, are invisible. You’d never even know they were here. But the other ones, well, we hear about them all the time.
Neo: I’ve never heard of them.
The Oracle: Oh, of course you have. Every time you’ve heard someone say they saw a ghost, or an angel. Every story you’ve ever heard about vampires, werewolves, or aliens, is the system assimilating some program that’s doing something they’re not supposed to be doing.”

“There will always be men willing to accept the sexual dictates of women because it serves their breeding imperatives. It’s good for him personally and it’s good for the species.”

Maybe it’s my own failure of imagination, but I don’t see how a society based on unrestrained hypergamy is even feasible. Putting questions of justice and fairness aside, hypergamy is suited to a hunter gatherer, pre-private property social order. I don’t see how it could possibly dominate modern societies without destroying them.

The average guy has very little sexual marketplace value. He’s sexually invisible by default, and this is why so many of them go the beta provider route, because what the hell else are they going to do? It’s their only means of conforming to what appear to be women’s expectations. With this avenue closed off, a number of guys will try to do the alpha thing, but a lot of them aren’t going to be able to do it successfully. They’ll just disappear and any incentive they had to engage with society’s most important institutions (like work, education, marriage, etc.) will be at an end. I’m having a hard time imagining what such a society will look like or how it will manage to recreate itself from generation to generation.

@Divided Line
We already have societies with unrestrained hypergamy in existence. Go to any ghetto in Baltimore, St. Louis and L.A. to witness the results. Social pressure is needed to keep civilization running. Both genders need to sacrifice and do their equal share. Unfortunately, in contemporary America, one gender has decided that everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

@stationarity
You’re absolving women of any responsibility and transferring all of it onto the shoulders of a man. And said man answers to his wife in most cases. So women are responsible for hypergamy as well.

@Tom is right, the ghettoes of major American cities are an excellent example of the results of unrestrained hypergamy in action. They are female-dominated, males are peripheral and often absent, and females compete to mate with the few alphas around, who are usually hardened criminals likely to be killed or go back to prison at any time. Females happily get pregnant by these alphas, and raise the kids alone or with help from older female relatives, with the kids usually growing up to repeat the cycle.

Incidentally, these neighborhoods are usually high-crime, with the few males around murdering each other on a depressingly regular basis. Marriage is virtually non-existent, and each female is likely to have a number of “baby daddies” any one of which may be shacking up with her at the time. It is said elsewhere in the Manosphere that where these neighborhoods are now, the rest of the country will be in another generation or two.

So many in the sphere keep looking for ‘justice/fairness’ in the realm of sexual politics. It’s a fool’s quest, because such a thing doesn’t exist. Hypergamy is the ‘law of the jungle’ at the beating heart of everything in this arena. Alpha gets the first and best choice and beta lurks at the edge of the clearing and takes the leavings after the alpha is sated. We humans have always been hardwired this way, and even harshly imposed social strictures can—at best—slightly mitigate these behaviors. But they can never eradicate the innate instincts.

P.S. What I might posit is that women aren’t getting worse, they’re getting better in a purely evolutionary sense. One that primarily benefits women. And the majority of men in the western world are helping to facilitate it. Maybe women ARE stronger than us, after all.

@TheDiplomat
You are pedestalizing women. If you think lobbying for lowered standards and affirmative action is an evolutionary leap, then you have a poor understanding of biology. All these handouts to women have a price and American society as a whole will pay for it in the form of higher deficits, lowered competitiveness and/or a lowered standard of living.
Civilization is an attempt to impose some justice on the world through constraints all for the greater good. It will never be entirely fair and I accept that. It is the gross unfairness that troubles me. What is tragic is how the manosphere accepts it and simply says, “I will work harder.”
Read Animal Farm if you want to see where that philosophy leads.
This nonsense about alpha gets the best is true up to a point. He gets the best until the woman he’s with decides to take what he has and leaves.
Or until she files a false rape accusation and society rallies a lynch mob to avenge her honor. Want examples? Columbia rape case. UVA rape case. Duke rape case. Rich white frat lacrosse players are the manosphere definition of alpha. Duke Lacross players almost had their lives destroyed by a poor, uneducated ghetto stripper. Wake up, my friend. The game is rigged and this “Be better” mantra is not as efficacious as you think.
Yes we should all be better but unless laws are changed, male power is an order of magnitude lower than female power. I personally don’t like being low on the totem pole so I will expatriate. Remember gentlemen. Playing a rigged game isn’t a testament to your manhood. It’s a sign of poor judgment.

Tl;dr: Duke alpha lacrosse players were rich, white frat stars. They were almost destroyed by a poor ghetto stripper. Being alpha doesn’t mean you can dodge bullets.

One more example of Alpha vulnerability. Jian Ghomeshi. Google him. He was living the 50 shades of gray lifestyle until one of his plates experienced regret after a night of rough sex. Jian Ghomeshi was a demigod in Canada. Still wasn’t enough to keep him out of jail.

Game is important but reshaping society’s structure is important as well. Two of the greatest victories against radical feminism were #redditrevolt and #gamergate. They were massive operations which coordinated thousands of people. Gamergate was almost a year long campaign. Nobody had ever damaged Gawker like Gamergate. And who organized gamergate? Beta males, gays, gamers, and one plucky disabled coder. Sure alpha males like Cernovich helped but ultimately it was a large mass of people rising up and speaking in unison. We can learn from that victory.
One last thing. It’s not as if women aren’t aware of game, at least on a subconscious level. The recent moves to criminalize street harassment are an example of countermeasures to game. The spread of Yes means Yes is another example. How do you run game if consent can be withdrawn 6 months after intercourse? Food for thought gentlemen.

A very interesting question. My exwife (when in the course of our divorce) readily admitted that she would have been a bitch if I’d denied her desires, but said she would have respected me more if I had. Ultimately, she was admitting that she tested me, and I failed the test.

For my part, I tried all kinds of strategies, and it seemed that when I was cold and distant, she treated me better. But I didn’t WANT to be cold and distant. It was very unsatisfying for me.

Ultimately, I believe that we need to have more realistic expectations of each other. For men, a woman simply cannot be the soulmate you desire. They are incapable of handling the burdens men bear, and we hold a responsibility to shield them from that burden so they can more appropriately focus on the task of bearing and raising children – which is their prime directive.

For women, they need to give up on the idea of the Prince Charming who is simultaneously rough and gentle, demanding and kind, strong and pliable. They have a fantasy which doesn’t exist in the real world, and when they get close to a man, he will inevitably disappoint their ideals.

Both men and women need to give up on their fantasies and approach mating more realistically. This is where the arranged marriage model that reigned supreme for most of history has a leg up on the love and passion model we current subscribe to in the West. Even those marriages that were not officially arranged in a formal manner were nevertheless overseen by matchmakers, and relatives who actively took part in finding suitable mates for their young.

It seems that previous generations were much more pragmatic in their approach to long-term relationships. Single mothers (most often widows) and young fathers who lost their wives in child birth quickly remarried. There wasn’t time for the angst surrounding death. Practically speaking, you needed a mate to help you get through life – whether a man or a woman, and were willing to take the best available offering and stay committed to that decision. The long work days didn’t leave time for the leisure activity of cheating on your spouse, or even entertaining thoughts of infidelity for most people. Love was not the touchy, feely emotional phenomenon it is today. Romantic Love was closer to the filial love you have for a family member, and you felt the obligations of that love on yourself, and didn’t spend time wondering if there was someone “better” or if you missed “the one.”

This isn’t to say that romance was non-existent, or that there was no desire for it. But absent the exposure to the wide world via modern media, the prospects were limited, and people took what they could get. Because life was so hard, there was an appreciation for what the opposite sex provided that was mutual and steady throughout society, and extended family and community supports and enforced that steadiness.

The attraction of the “red pill” is that it brings us back to the truth as men. Do not fully trust a woman with your dreams, and do not depend upon her for emotional support. The difficulty for us in modern times is to not get bitter when we find out we’ve been lied to all our lives, and we come to understand the limitations women have in providing us the total emotional succor we desire. But we only desire it because we’ve been told it’s a possibility. Once we understand that women can provide only limited emotional support for our dreams, then, if we accept that reality, we should then come to focus on what women CAN provide. Instead of being bitter for what they are incapable of, we need to learn to appreciate what they CAN give us.

And what women CAN give us is not insignificant. Men provide substance. Women provide beauty. Men provide seriousness. Women provide distraction, which is necessary for sanity. I LIKE coming home to a well kept, well decorated home. The beauty of it is comforting. I LIKE having a beautiful woman on my arm. It makes me feel more like a man. I LIKE providing safety and support for a family. It provides me with purpose. I LIKE the ability of women to distract me from serious issues because otherwise I become stale and boring. Frankly, women provide enjoyment that doesn’t exist without them. Take it for what it is, and simply appreciate it.

But DON’T mistake that enjoyment for security. Women do not and cannot provide a “safe haven” for men. There is a reason that men didn’t tell women everything, and that women complained about men being closed up emotionally. It’s because while men are equipped to handle the emotional storms of women, women are NOT equipped to handle our emotional storms. Accept it. Deal with it realistically. And STOP expecting women to provide something they cannot.

NONE of what I said excuses a woman for behaving duplicitously. I have reprimanded my own daughter for misbehaving in public toward her boyfriend. Women have full moral agency. Part of THEIR responsibility is to understand their own limitations and quit demanding that men be more like women. Just as we have a responsibility to accept women for who they really are, so also women have a responsibility to fully acknowledge their limitations and address them honestly. If they cannot handle the burden of unfulfilled dreams, then they should refrain from asking men to tell them their dreams. And most of all, they need to climb down off the podium of judgment because they are NOT morally superior to men, and are NOT entitled to pass judgment. They can accept or reject. But they don’t have a right to judge any man as deficient when he is merely incomplete at that particular time. Men need the freedom to fail in order to achieve success. And they won’t get that from women who think it is their right to pass judgment. For women: Don’t be a Scold. For men: quit making women an excuse for failure. Get up and be a man.

@Scott
You had me until the last part. I doubt very few men here are waiting for a woman to make them complete. Most men here are college educated professionals or skilled tradesmen. Many have 6 figure incomes, no debt, decent physique, confidence etc..etc..
The point I’m making is that speaking to a woman on the street may land you in jail. Having sex with a woman may be considered rape until you can prove otherwise. These are real changes in society transpiring today. Men need to rally together and advocate for themselves politically or else they’ll fail the most massive shit test ever orchestrated.

if a man has neither the sex appeal to be a short term sexual prospect nor the provisioning appeal to be a long term investment, women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.

What do you mean by “controlling his capacity for commitment”? Could you give an example?

OP: So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses…

I was at a bar with a couple buddies on Sunday night. The Florida State QB episode where he retaliated to a punch from a girl with a punch. The two men I was with and three others that chimed in all said that you never hit a girl. I disagreed and was roundly lambasted. In the comments that I read, the majority of women said she was at fault and put herself in that position; the men, almost to a man, said you never hit a woman for any reason.

I’m not advocating smacking women around, but how can men help them be better women if there are no consequences for what women do? They can dress as slutty as they want, and men (the wrong men) can’t look. Women can make false DV and rape allegations and the man is assumed guilty. They can cheat on their husbands and still get the kids, alimony and community property. Hell, a husband and father was killed in Oklahoma after the mother slapped their daughter and police were called. A woman staged a false rape scene because she was going to be fired (she was having an affair with her boss); only the fitbit she was wearing saved the guy from a possible felony. We’ll see what happens to her.

The longer I live, the more I realize that women are really half-children. They cannot deal with abstract thought and personalize everything. It is frustrating to even have a conversation with them as no matter what you say, they apply it to themselves. They shouldn’t vote or be on juries as they are ruled by emotions rather than logic.

When it comes to women, times have changed because of two words – social media. Women have this outrageously huge outlet for attention-whoring that was not available to them a dozen years ago. They can get a ton of “you go girl” reinforcement on Facebook compared to what they could get in real life away from their idiot phones.

When you combine this with their moral fluidity, and their knack for appearing adult-like while somehow never taking responsibility for their actions…well, I have no idea how you put this genie back in the bottle. I just can’t picture your average suburban guy demanding the wifey scale back on Facebook drivel and having a prayer of winning that battle.

Responsibility requires power.
I may be responsible for lifting up a piece of rock – Maybe I did, maybe I didn’t but if I don’t have the power, the might to do so then I may be held accountable by some liars but in reality I couldn’t have done it.

Responsibility has been connected to an accountability in moral codes.
Now this is being inverted – Man is accountable, woman is not by current morality thus inverted causality says he must be responsible for it.

The more I think about it, the more I believe we are becoming a matriarchy, folks. This is an ineluctable consequence of women not needing us for daily survival and them having the power of sexual selection. Most people don’t seem to know that western civilization only stopped having mass famines 150 years ago – the kind of prosperity and security open to a woman without a man as a provider/protector is simply unprecedented. Why would women not change their sexual behavior as a result? Why would they spend a life with one man? And of course, a matriarchy would feature open hypergamy just as harems suited alpha men in traditional societies.

We are in the midst of that transition, so our social order is a mess. The only thing that could change this to my thinking is a big change in the ecology where individual women need individual men to provide and protect again – but if that happened, it would mean that our society has collapsed so it would be at best a mixed blessing for men. In a matriarchy, they can still get the best genetic material from alphas who turn them on, but fucking Betas? They get nothing. The entire manosphere can be seen as “The Beta’s Lament”. Sure, women will use betas when it suits them to start families by throwing them some sex (cuz most men won’t sign up to provision and father from a distance) but beyond that? Utterly disposable.

I don’t like it. It is incompatible with the previous social order. I think the future looks like MGTOW for Betas, pussy galore for Alphas, and the death of traditional masculinity and femininity. We are already a long way towards that state. And there is no cure. Remember, we humans are merely carriers for our genes – in the end, they are in charge, not us. We just adapt to the ecology and pursue what our genes tell us to.

It’s easy. Default setting in humanity is hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative because eggs are more valuable than sperm. Biological instincts and attitudes are programmed to favor the Feminine Imperative, both for men and women.

The only way to stop that is having a patriarchal religion (Churchianity does not qualify in this category). When people are more focused on their personal happiness or pleasure, they always end up giving concessions to the Feminine Imperative (because it is the default setting) until getting to the mess we are now in. But, if you are more focused on serving God, you are less easily manipulated by women.

For example, if you think God forbids casual sex (as I do) and you forbid casual sex in your society, you have forbidden AFBB (I saw this when growing up in my home country). If you only want to focus on your own happiness, and you are an alpha, of course you will do AF. And if you are a beta wanting to marry, you will do BB. So women can play you the way you want because your own biological desires play in favor of women.

It happened in ancient Romen. When the old patriarchal religion was dismissed and a set of hedonistic cults arise, traditional family broke down and the saying saying “Rome rules the world but women rule Rome” appeared.

There are only two forces in human history: the Holy God or the Holy Pussy. Take your pick. But, if you pick the Holy Pussy (and her daughters: Saint Success, Saint Money and Saint Pleasure), don’t complain that she is a cruel goddess.

In short, it’s not that only men or only women are to blame for following the Feminine Imperative. Both have an innate tendency to follow it. Our society has decided to do away with patriarchal religion so this is the logical conclusion. So both sexes are to blame. We are not our sisters’ keepers and they are not their brothers’ keepers.

“I don’t like it. It is incompatible with the previous social order. I think the future looks like MGTOW for Betas, pussy galore for Alphas, and the death of traditional masculinity and femininity. We are already a long way towards that state. And there is no cure. Remember, we humans are merely carriers for our genes – in the end, they are in charge, not us. We just adapt to the ecology and pursue what our genes tell us to.

We are all “Dancing Monkeys”.”

There you go again Scribbler. Once again showing you are not through to the last stage of acceptance (Kubler-Ross DABDA grief stages) with the loss of patriarchy. If you were the last sentence would read:

We men are pretty damn well “Adaptable”

BTW, if some woman were to say patriarchy=bad, I would say: Oh,yeah, well you women sometimes need to be told no. I remember one time a year ago, my wife was telling me never to tell her some such thing and I told her I’m not going to abide by that. That sometimes she just needs to be told NO! Ended the discussion and she had no comeback at all. That was the beginning of the end of her longstanding dominant Frame in our relationship.

Interesting post and more interesting comments. A common thread (among commenters here at least) is to take one of Rollo’s posts and filter that new knowledge through the commenters experience personal filter (hey, where else have we heard that before?)

Here is where we get all the machinations and twisting and turning both away and towards his ideas (which I agree with almost completely BTW) in an attempt for the ego identity to retain relevance and a foothold in a crumbling worldview.

I totally get it guys but you gotta get past this step in your personal growth PRONTO, it’s holding you back. I’m realizing more and more its the common stumbling block in betas (or worse) trying to grow.

It’s either true or not. accept it or not, and move the fuck forward. The endless back and forth or the “emotional dance of the beta” is an identical process as trying to rationalize attraction (“but look, look, it doesn’t make SENSE why you want to get divorced. What about the kids. I Luuuuuuuv you baby!”)

Hint: executive level guys and men with many options don’t endlessly back and forth on things that simply require a buy-in or opt-out.

34 y/o and this is the first comment I’ve ever made in the manosphere. I found the red pill about two months ago after allowing a girl to move in with me and then becoming frustrated with her changes in behavior. This was my first attempt at an LTR since divorcing a woman who had cheated. I kicked her out within a couple of weeks after taking the pill, doing tons of reading, and observing the harsh new reality with my brand new eyes. The Iron Rule was right and I knew it within moments of reading that particular article about not living with a woman. Anyway, a thought occurred to me while reading this post. As idealistic as men are prone to be, with talk about justice, truth, and honor, are these just social conventions that were developed for, ultimately, the sole purpose of enforcing them on women in order to restrain their hypergamous nature? If so, it ain’t working anymore. It leaves a bitter taste to consider that most, if not all, of human interaction can be boiled down to mating strategies, but it’s hard not to see it everywhere I go.

@ Tilikum From a personal perspective, it’s either buy in or opt out. The only two rational options are to make your best attempt to go alpha, if you’re capable, or to say “to hell with it” and go MGTOW, again, if you’re able. Beta provider game is dead, even if somebody can successfully pull it off. In the current climate, one wonders why you would even want to.

I think Rollo’s right about the impossibility of a mass reverse Lysistrata. Going MGTOW and actually being happy that way might be just as challenging as trying to remake yourself to conform with women’s hunter gatherer libido. That’s for individual men to decide.

But if we consider the question from the macro historical and sociological perspective, I think it’s just as unrealistic to think that the average guy is going to be able to sufficiently alpha-up in response to the emerging sexual marketplace. If you need a graduate degree in evolutionary psychology and ninja social skills to avoid divorce rape and every other pitfall men are now threatened with, you can forget it. Even if you can beat the spread and laugh all the way to the pussy bank, it’s a fair bet that a growing portion of the male population won’t be able to.

Even if we can individually thrive in the new environment, it still doesn’t change the fact that a growing segment of the population will have no meaningful investment in this society and its institutions. The whole thing is built on family formation.

Successfully meeting whatever dictated benchmarks and qualifying for women’s intimacy is the primary incentive which compels men’s engagement with society. Men locked out of that process can easily be persuaded to strap on a suicide bomb vest, back wackos and hardliners, or engage in political violence, and all of this in addition to garden variety forms of criminality. They have nothing to lose. Their interpretation of ideology and public affairs will be colored by their personal experiences, grievances, and anxieties in this area of life just as is true for all of us, and all of this will manifest itself in a radically different political and social landscape.

We can look at ghettos where the family has broken down and get a sense of what the matriarchy would look like, but these are isolated and insular places which exist within a system which is not a matriarchy and thus are sustained by the dominant system (or exploited by it, depending on your point of view). Malcolm X called them “internal colonies” and I think that’s accurate in a lot of ways. But what does a modern industrial system which degenerates into matriarchy look like writ large? I don’t even think such a thing will be possible. It would be doomed to revolution and instability until a more powerful rival could capitalize on the discord and internal weakness.

Not that I really care, to be honest. If the the system such as it is implodes, I say good riddance. I’d be happy to watch it burn.

“I think it’s just as unrealistic to think that the average guy is going to be able to sufficiently alpha-up in response to the emerging sexual marketplace.”

I agree wholeheartedly BUT….I figure if you made it here, and want it, then that’s 90% of the battle. The rest is just letting go and and buy in to the message that is observationally true and reproducible.

Sample: I can PROVE that “the game” is real and beatable, so if you want what i have, you got to do what I do. So quit yammering!

@Tilikum “Hint: executive level guys and men with many options don’t endlessly back and forth on things that simply require a buy-in or opt-out.”

How about a third option. Think globally, act locally. Accepting current sexual and legal reality and acting accordingly does not mean you have to stop agitating for change. At least changes in the legal landscape. Hypergamy is what it is.

Are we to blame? Indirectly I suppose. I believe that our current state of hypergamy is just a side effect of women’s suffrage. Of course they are going to advocate for the optimization of the feminine imperative. That’s just human nature. It’s hard to say that we should never have let them start voting.

Is there any way to rationally appeal to the hypergamous subconscious of a woman?

You can tell your daughter not to dress slutty, and that being feminine and admiring of a man you want is best tool to get him to commit, but will that actually convince her to seduce an alpha at 25 and get married? I doubt it.

I think our best option is to actually embrace open hypergamy. Expose it and exploit it. Don’t get married. Don’t commit. Spin Plates. Open the eyes of the next generation of men. All of the sudden women might start changing strategy and become more feminine, lose weight, end their open competition with men.

There will never be some global Lysistrata where men organize in solidarity, promising not to fuck another woman until they comply with demands that would place the Masculine Imperative above that of the feminine’s. Our own biology guarantees it.

I agree, but I would add one thing here:

There will be and already is a growing movement away from provisioning for women who show no appreciation in a legal climate unfavorable to men. The ghettos mentioned above are ALSO an example of this. When only the criminals and the guys without regular, steady, stable jobs are the only ones getting the desirable women, and the guys you do know that provision to get sex wind up destitute and ultimately not getting sex, then the incentives are to get a dog and hang on to your money.

It’s not that men are organized in solidarity, it’s just that the incentives are for Betas in the first world to exit provisioning since they’re not getting sex for it. Biology makes it impossible to ever turn off the drive, but between the grass eaters in Japan and the many friends I have who’ve simply given up on getting sex and refuse to just provision for a low probability of unenthusiastic duty sex (from women who can provision for themselves, no less), I think it just divides in to the haves (Alphas) and the have-nots (Betas) with women really suffering only from a lack of Beta providers.

That’s why frame control is so important as a way of life and especially in Game. I’ve just had the experience where a girl I had been banging for 4 months, then pulled way back from after she went cool suddenly reconnected.

It didn’t go well. She’s spoiled, used to guys falling all over her and couldn’t “understand” me or why I was “like that” when it came to not putting up with her crap. She would call me “aging sex addict”–when she was all up for every type of sexual activity. When I told her to “fuck off” first she’d be morph into the victim. When that didn’t work it would be remorseful.

In the end as I posted elsewhere, she ended up vindictively attacking me by creating a fake name and Facebook profile, posting pictures of us with herself photoshopped out calling me a “bastard” who “lied” to her about everything and “ruined” life. She then sent this to my female friends and posted in my social circles on Facebook.

But of course, it’s not her fault… she has no free will, I would have driven her to this.

This double standard is proof that this type of woman will never get “better” with the “right” guy….The next guy will be an emotional tampon for her to unload about what a terrible guy her “ex” (me) was. He’ll feed into that by agreeing and trying very hard NOT to be like me which will only bore the shit out of her and she’ll either reach out again or find another guy who she’ll position herself as the victim with.

It’s easier to lie when you’re positioned as a victim….society and men especially has been conditioned to never question the poor hard luck woman…letting her get away with anything as long as she can blame it on a guy’s provocation.

The Red Pill has taught me that the reality of needing to keep focused on myself is the key to being a better man towards women. Being called “selfish” is almost a compliment.

“There’s a manosphere idiom that says women are the gatekeepers of sex while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. I’m not sure I completely agree with that.”

I didn’t wholly agree with that either. It’s like a default acceptance of restriction of choices or lack of influence on outcome based only on being male.
Yes, women want to be pursued and that can look like a monopoly on choice and power, but men don’t see the option to call off a pursuit as a position of power. As in the topic of the politics of respectability I heard,the burden of proving acceptance leading to always finding something wrong, a sincere rejection of that severely weakens the power of choice the other party has.
Hope that makes sense.

@fartofseduction- honor, justice and all that came about from man to man. When times a hard, life is more fragile, you have to know who you can count on and who you can’t. If somebody was there for you, you need to be there for them. Else the group, society, or whatever can’t take the chance of you flaking out for the sake of your own benefit, leaving them vulnerable to surprise that could be very detrimental.
In times of prosperity, women can be flakier. Like stories you here about child actors on hit shows spending crazily. That big house they bought when they were cute still has a big electric and heating bill when they get older and non-cute and don’t get acting jobs.
It’s something men have mistakenly tried to carry over to women. And Rollo has written about that somewhere in his blog.

Pass. I suppose it’s me but I reject the beta mindset of “working together” in all forms with rare exception. It’s a realignment of values that just doesn’t benefit me in spite of all the attempts to socialize “cooperation” into me.

Lesser men are forced to work together, and I’m just not a joiner, sorry.

I’ll use a betas to help myself and if they benefit in the process awesome. If not, meh. The legal system is remarkably simple to maneuver once you learn what it wants and feed IT’S hamster too.

The problem with “Alpha up” is that it ignores how women select mates. If every man in the world dedicated himself to self improvement women would still only be interested in the top 20%. Sjf and Tilikum your advice amounts to “Alpha up”, nothing new from guys who’ve maintained high status. Instead of preening it about, perhaps you could try being thankful that you weren’t raised by wolves or struck down with serious illness or even just gotten unlucky. How “alpha” would you be if you lost your medical license due to a simple human mistake you made, Sjf? Or how ’bout you fall off your tractor and are physically disabled? While effort counts, you guys seem to not care or think about the other 80% of men out there. Law of Power 10 means fuck those who don’t win. Sure, that’s super cool if you are in the top 20%.

I think this is why I bring a unique POV, having been a bit a natural and successful and then having my life get mauled by sickness and economic misfortune. I now know what it’s like to be on the losing end of the game and it makes me have a lot more empathy for the 80% who are left with nothing but crumbs and misery.

Sure, in this shit world of course I want to be in the top 20% but from a broader POV one has to admit that such a social order is shit for the “average man”.

Listening to this dialog I’m reminded of “The Lake Woebegone” fallacy where all the children are above average, lol. A social order in which 80% of men are designated to live lives of deprivation and denigration is going to result in rebellion, failing economies and lots of chaos. I think we are seeing the front edge of that now in some of the minority unrest and how rapidly so many men are dropping out of mainstream society wrt education and work etc. FYI this is yet another dirty little secret of our unemployment data, most of the people dropping out of the labor force are men.

It’s easy to see the above as whining but that is to miss the point. The simple question I now understand that I never carded about before is “what about the rest of us?” One can do everything right but if one is in a game that only skims off the top 20% then it’s also going to skim off the lucky ones. I realize all you uber alphas believe you got there purely based on merit but it just ain’t so.

I’m recovering my high status but even then I recognize how fortunate I am. It turns out that I was genetically blessed with a high IQ and that income is highly correlated with IQ – what did I do to “earn” that? I have a great boyish face with great cheekbones and bedroom eyes. What did I do to earn that? I’m white, didn’t do nothing to earn that either. So yes, I’m playing to get back into the top 20% but I just can’t go along with the “fuck everyone else cuz I’m better than them” posture . Sorry. It’s also completely unsustainable as a social order.

Regarding the idea of “women as gatekeepers of sex and men as gatekeepers of commitment” – I’ve heard this far too often, and it is nonsense. Men are not the gatekeepers of commitment – the LAW is the gatekeeper of commitment.

It’s funny – people can’t seem to agree on what the word “commitment” even means, dictionary definitions aside. I once argued with a female blogger on another site, who basically asserted that “commitment” is nothing more than a word given. She claimed that going to her weekly book-club was a commitment for her.

I asked her what the consequence would be if one week she decided not to go to her book club – she replied that there would be none, other than a feeling of guilt. That, I replied, is the difference between a promise and a commitment. A commitment has consequences when broken, a promise does not. In marriage, many promises are made – but if broken, do not lead to consequences (other than, perhaps, internal guilty feelings…or not). In marriage, the only commitment made is the commitment of provisioning from the higher-income spouse to the lower-income spouse. This commitment, once made, can not be revoked and is enforced by the LAW.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex. A woman can say yes or no to sex, and can revoke her consent at any point. Each new encounter requires new consent, and entitlement to consent is never justified, regardless of relational equity. Men are NOT the gatekeepers of commitment. Men ask women to marry them, not the reverse. Once a man makes the marital commitment of provisioning for a lower-earning spouse, he is NOT free to revoke it. It requires NO ongoing consent, and finances will be physically removed from him, under the law, even without his consent.

And this, I believe, is the answer to the question Rollo raised in his post, about who is responsible for the entitled behavior of women in today’s society. The LAW is responsible. Women are rational actors, who act in their own self-interest. If no consequences exist for bad behavior, bad behavior will ensue. If the legal institution of marriage holds no actual commitment (in the sense of the word that I defined) from women, women will feel free to walk with cash, prizes, and children. Men (largely) wrote these laws. They did it because they are hard-wired to protect women at their own expense, and the rest of us shut up about it because we are hard-wired the same way. Until this urge to protect women at the expense of men is done away with, the law will remain patriarchal, providing incentives and no punishments for bad female behavior.

Hypergamy is a given and it’s not going anywhere. But even if women’s sexuality is biologically rooted, their rationalizations for it aren’t possible without a compliant culture. So long as women are the damsels, the victims who are put upon by the cruel and all powerful patriarchy, so long as men are perceived to be powerful and free in a way that they clearly are not nor have ever been, open hypergamy is possible. After all, any guy who points it out or complains about it is branded an embittered loser, a misogynist, a creep, and so on, but I wonder to what degree this will change as red pill awareness spreads and penetrates the mainstream. I mean, how long do we think that men will go on smiling and nodding when it’s increasingly the case that more and more of us can see what bullshit all of this is?

If you haven’t already read it, she goes on and on about how male attention is abundant and cheap, proving that women are well aware of what men who bother with online dating realized from the start. She recognizes the extreme degree of power this gives her before hamstering it away with this:

“Some will read my gleeful rejections on the many faces I encounter on Tinder as evidence of a disturbing uptick in malevolent, anti-male sentiments among single straight women. It is not. It is evidence of us arriving nearer to gender equilibrium where men can no longer happily judge the clear and abundant photos and carefully crafted profiles of women but become incensed when they take the opportunity to do the same.”

How many times have you seen this? All venality, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, etc is justified, of course, because men have it so good, women have it so bad, blah blah etc. So she can write something like this and the sisterhood will nod their heads and no doubt be able to ignore doubt or second thoughts in regards to their atrocious, destructive, and cruel treatment of the opposite sex. Women, like people who rationalize generally, tend to think in bogus bumper sticker one liners because they provide excuses not to think for themselves. And men, after all, just saunter about in the patriarchal torture dungeon of a society free and powerful and pluck women from the trees before discarding them like jizz towels, so naturally, why should she consider their complexity as human beings or ever recognize what a rotten, horrible human being she is? They’re free to retaliate against men for women’s imaginary oppression.

But how long will they be able to keep employing these rationalizations and getting away with it if the public dialog changes? And it has already begun to change. I’ve watched it happen over the last year. You see more and more disclaimers in articles which appeal to the you-go-girl crowd. It really does seem as if there is a growing awareness that they are full of shit, or at the very least, that maybe there are moral complexities and obligations that come with female social power, to the degree that they are even willing to recognize that power.

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

If you have a terrible life, it may not be your fault that you have a terrible life, but it is your responsibility to improve your life. This applies to the sexual market place also. It is especially true for men as Bill Burr once said that as women your problems may not get solved, but at least they get addressed by society at large while for men your problems don’t even get addressed and nobody cares; sadly, this is generally speaking true. Your best choices are to become PUA(ALPHA FUX) or MGTOW(least damaged BETA BUX) and your worst choice is to man up and marry that gold digging harpy whore/ adulterous slut(most damaged BRTA BUX). Most men can not be ALPHA FUX so they become BETA BUX. If most men, at least 51% of men, were truly committed to ending this dysfunction in society then it would end. You as an individual man in the micro sense are not responsible for women behaving badly, however you are in the macro sense for failing to convince and persuade your fellow men in society at large to change the culture and the laws to hold women responsible for their behavior. Most people do what they can get away with. Each person, male or female, with options have a strong tendency to take them even though just because one can do or say something does not imply that one should do or say something.

Thought experiment: imagine the roles of sexual selection were reversed? That men were the gatekeepers of sex and women were ten times hornier than us and were constantly trying to fuck us? FYI even the highest alpha male doesn’t get that.

How would men behave? Would we be more considerate of women than they are of us? Lol, we’d be trading them out at our pleasure to the degree that we could. We’d take it for granted and assume we were superior as women do – I mean why would women not assume they are superior to men given how men debase themselves to cater to women? Men would come to the same conclusion.

Of course this isn’t going to happen but it’s very interesting to think about.

” . . . do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?”

Certainly not. It’s men’s responsibility for saying “No,” forcefully. Each side must stand up for its own if there is to be a balance of forces. The rigging lines of a mast must be in equal tension if the mast is to stand. If it falls it isn’t the fault of any one line, it’s a fault of the system of lines.

What I wanted to add is that individually it is mot necessarily each man’s fault for the state of society, but collectively, it is. Women are getting away with a lot because of their male enablers and a divide and conquer strategy. Converting or destroying White Knights/ Manginas to our side is a priority, then getting the women to do what we want will be a mop up operation. In the work place or school, you need to be careful about what you say and do or risk the negative consequences of your actions, but almost any place else such as a bar, a church gathering, an American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars function, hanging out with your friends etc. then state red pill truths and stand firm in them because there is little to no harm of what could be done to you. If you can’t be brave in some of the easier situations to be brave, then it is your fault.

“The problem with “Alpha up” is that it ignores how women select mates. If every man in the world dedicated himself to self improvement women would still only be interested in the top 20%.”

I don’t know about that. You don’t walk up to a chick with your attraction percentile written on your forehead. We don’t have a huge amount of historical data to draw from, but I would guess that what makes a pussy tingle now isn’t much different than it was 200 years ago.

Biology makes it impossible to ever turn off the drive, but between the grass eaters in Japan and the many friends I have who’ve simply given up on getting sex and refuse to just provision for a low probability of unenthusiastic duty sex (from women who can provision for themselves, no less), I think it just divides in to the haves (Alphas) and the have-nots (Betas) with women really suffering only from a lack of Beta providers.

Porn plays a significant role here, too, now that it is available in high definition, in seemingly endless variety and with the privacy and portability of a cell phone. It isn’t the same as the real thing (not close), but for a lot of these guys it’s enough to sate them such that the edge of their sex drive is blunted, which further discourages them from taking the steps required to succeed with women in an open hypergamy environment. Porn isn’t that new, but streamed HD porn to cell phones in almost infinite variety is very new, and it’s certainly having an impact on the desire of less desirable (innately) men to interact with women at all.

Questioning some of the manospheres common believes is great! Please continue, I don’t think we are anywhere near sufficient understanding – at least if one wants more than getting laid.

But on the particular question of female responsibility I disagree.

You can see that question either from a moral position – blame game. But then we know women don’t share that ideal of justice so this whole point is mostly mood.
But if you don’t see the question as a moral one, you have to recognize it’s a powerplay and power is all that matters. In this framework it’s inevitable to accept women will pursue their interests just as far as men let them.

(But when accepting this powerplay, you’ll also see blaming and shaming are viable and powerful tools to limit female egoism – as long as you are not needy while doing it.)

@Andy – There is a ton of evidence that women choose up – back issues of this site included. I don’t have time to find cites for you as I’m busy right now but a quick google or two should help you out. The fact that women choose up and overshoot is not in dispute. The online dating site numbers are actually terrifying. Guys not in the top tier GET NOTHING. It’s competition and in many ways a relative valuation.

Just read this article on Salon. It seems that the blame is once again shouldered by the man. Women are sexually repressed because MEN weren’t taught how to have sex. I would say that like with most things that women do, women take no responsibility for their own sexual gratification. To paraphrase the great comedian, Jim Jefferies, If I can’t get an erection, I’m called impotent and it’s my fault, but if she can’t get her hole wet she’ll say something like, “he’s wasn’t so good, he didn’t even get me wet”. Which is bullshit because a dry hole is an impotent hole. It’s my job to get an erection, it’s your job to get wet, we both have things to do.

From the article:

“Men are taught that they’re just supposed to know without having to ask…Men [early on] don’t talk about how to have sex, they talk about ramming someone. They look at porn. They don’t see what intimacy looks like through anything in their culture growing up. And men don’t feel like they’re allowed to ask, or they want to give their wives privacy. And then they come in [to therapy] and they’re really, really excited to learn all these new ideas. And typically, it’s not that there’s anything, ‘wrong’ with [their wives]. It’s that the kind of sex that they’re having is totally unenjoyable because nobody ever taught that guy how to have sex. So, it’s just about educating people around how people avoid having intimacy by having standardly classic sex. And just normalizing all of that can make such a huge difference.”

See, the MAN doesn’t know how to have sex, the MAN doesn’t know what intimacy looks like. As though women instinctively know how to have sex or what it is to be intimate. Again, thrusting women into default victimhood because her man doesn’t know how to meet her sexual needs. This is simple qualification of the definition of sex and intimacy through the lens of the Female Imperative. Because we all know, the FI definition is the right definition. Sure, there’s nothing “wrong” with the wife. Except for the fact that she’s utterly failing to communicate with her husband and take personal responsibility for her own sexual dissatisfaction and would rather seek satisfaction outside of their marriage than simply have a discussion. But that’s ok because through the FI, she’ll be completely justified and forgiven for her indiscretions because, of course, she’s the victim here.

As far as our culture is concerned, this is a Truth laying in wait to be invoked. This kind of unilateral blame designed to facilitate malleable female agency is now a permanent fixture. The femcentric culture maintains a perpetual indictment of men. The Grand Jury is always in session.

On one hand, I see this as women asking to be dominated. Like some kind of meta-shit-test. But while the individual woman desires to be dominated, the collective Woman cannot fathom giving ground in any way. Regardless, an actionable truth from all of this is that it is paramount that men build their personal strength, dominance, and self-reliance.

Go ahead, lay blame at my feet, but I’m not going to internalize it, I’m not going to pick it up. But it seems to me that far too many men are willing to pay debts they did not accrue. That’s in addition to those on the macro level. Just one way in which the FI with its slippery relativism has co-opted and redefined male ideals like honor to include carrying her water.

But without the infrastructure to cultivate and enforce male honor, we can see the outcomes revealing themselves in increasingly individualistic and even nihilistic ways.

Honor should be a code – something defined, achieved through action, to be granted by fellow men of honor, maintained through the brackets of achievement and shame of failure or betrayal. But it is now just one more self-appointed quality like so many others subject to the whims of self-interest.

Too many men can barely muster the balls to support their male groups, so the codes within are even less tenable. A friend as to why he didn’t make the BBQ: “My wife handles the social calendar, I’m just too busy so I default to her.”

Honor is just a Feeling now. Its open to the perpetual short-cutting and appropriation by the chattering class of the femculture. One more ribbon on the puffed chest of the manboobs, placed there for the cheap price of moral-self-licensing. We are a land of the paper-cut purple hearts, Twitter Mark Twains, and Facebook freedom fighters.

The other day, as we were discussing something in this vein, a close friend dropped something like “there are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth.” It struck me as something his psychologist probably said to make him feel good about the $200 session, but even more it spoke to the femcentric tendency to pay false homage to the universal, i.e. yes, there IS something called the Truth, but what really matters is the perspective of the individuals involved, which is a kind of Ctrl+V to the Feelz.

IOW, the Truth is important, but it is too esoteric to be practical, so what actually matters is your truth (experience) and my truth (experience), which given the hard-wired hierarchy enforced via the FI is the same as saying Female+Experience=Truth. This can be applied to all aspects of those male ideals of justice and respect.

How she feels is the only truth that matters. On a cultural level, these female feelz are what drive everything now. And increasingly, men are being indoctrinated into this as they too worship the feelz or at the very least prostrate their codes to avoid conflict, personal risk, and the practical burden these codes now carry in the field of competition.

What is becoming increasingly relevant to me is the fact that in a feminized society, with “…the prioritizing of women’s concept of justice above that of men’s” more men are adapting to this environment by overwriting their masculine ideals with those befitting the feminine.

And young men are growing up never having those male ideals inculcated, demonstrated, and rewarded within the context of masculine pursuits, social groups, and family units in the first place. So even if these ideals are uniquely male and intrinsic, they cannot survive in this environment.

Within the manosphere a lot of time is spent discussing these ideals, but in reality, I encounter very few men who live these ideals through their choices and actions and voices – even in the close company of other men. Which is something we praise as a critical view of female truth; not what they say, but what they do. Men may hold these things in their hearts but without those things informing and guiding their actions they might as well not exist.

Even most of my traditionally masculine friends will quickly dilute their accomplishments by co-signing white male privilege or pay gap or demean their own sexuality via propping up the notion of rape culture.

Ive had to shed some male relationships over this. For me it is about trust. These men may not turn on friends directly, but they will turn on the last bastions of masculinity, the last remnants of infrastructure that hold the defining qualities and rewards of justice, honor, and respect because prioritizing their (individual) rewards and/or nihilistic worldview now seems more pragmatic than the toil and risk and sacrifice of constructing some city-within-a-city.

So what troubles me beyond merely the anti-male nature of our culture is that for the average man, adopting pragmatism within this environment seems to be moving him further from his true strengths, his codes, his ideals. Now admittedly this may presume a path-of-least-resistance approach which may not be true, but it seems like pragmatism often invites passivity. Particularly problematic since most men have been trained in the latter already.

When the natural strength of men in the form of their ideals and their codes become liabilities without rewards, they too easily look to him like a weakness he must modify or shed.

@Atticus. That is my point. A man who adapts to today’s sexual landscape doesn’t have to stop agitating for change. Cernovich is probably the best example of that. He is a leader in the Gamergate uprising while leading a satisfying nomadic lifestyle. That’s the model I intend to emulate. It seems defeatist to just stand back and watch the world burn. And it’s not very masculine as well…

“If women were generally victorious in there imperative we would have to acknowledge it.”

WTF? They have been and continue to be “victorious in there(sic) imperative”. Dealing with that “success” is about all we do here.

“They are not, and both genders fail because of it.”

WTF are you trying to say? Both genders fail because women aren’t victorious? Women aren’t failing, on the contrary have been very successful. Your attempt at cryptic wisdom is rather incoherent. Explain yourself.

I actually don’t think that AF/BB or lane changing will go away as long as women have de facto independence economically from any one specific man. That’s the driver here, and it won’t go away unless there is some kind of sustained economic crisis that impacts women more than it does men.

What are men the gatekeepers of? It must be something. I don’t think it’s commitment. It isn’t provisioning, as women are capable of provisioning for themselves, (although possibly not for themselves, their children, and enough extra for taxes that go to the state, as men do).

I would posit that men are the gatekeepers of violence. It says much about modern society that almost all societal control of violence has been stripped away from men as individuals and given to the state.

Yes, it sounds like whining. But hey buddy I’m on your team. I’m not in the top 20% in SMV (but am in MMV). I care about those on my team who aren’t where they want to be.

I calibrate my risks all the time in regards to the M.D. license, the farm tractor work, felling trees with a chainsaw, illness, cancer etc. They are relative risks and I would be happy about the life I’ve already lived if I had to go out (die) tomorrow. Those risks don’t inhibit me from “engaging” in these things.

Hey but as long as its a game out there in mother nature’s and the FI’s word I’m going to understand the rules and perform as well as I can in an efficient manner.

“That’s not to be defeatist, or an endorsement of a MGTOW course of action, but it is to say that if a man has neither the sex appeal to be a short term sexual prospect nor the provisioning appeal to be a long term investment, women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.”

Basically, women have no problem trashing you to other women so they could make sure nobody fucks you. What a world we live in where they can do this and not be the ones who look bad at all.

The Fundamental Principle (ala Heartiste) came to mind here. His principle is, “Eggs are expensive; sperm is cheap.”

While it is highly reductionistic of him to say that, it has a nugget of truth embedded. Women have always been and always will be, to a certain extent, coddled. Men, on the other hand, will always be reprimanded in some way, shape or form. As long as we remain a sexually reproductive species, we will always acknowledge this core truth in one way or the other.

As for “women’s moral agency” one only needs to look at how our ancestors successfully dealt with this. Our ancestors knew just how selective women were in their sexual mating strategy and adapted to control it in the best way they could: arranged pairings. It is interesting to note that the mating patterns of hunters and gatherers were regulated by men (namely, a woman’s father). They somehow must have known that a woman selecting her mate out of pure “tingles” spells disaster for the entire group. So, in a sense, genuine desire was always negotiated for the good of the group.

Here’s an excerpt from the study, “Understanding the Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunctions in Women: an Evolutionary Perspective”:

“In all societies but one, the primary mode of long-term mating was arranged marriage, where fathers and other male relatives dominated marriage arrangements, and daughters were controlled more than sons.

Comparisons between agropastoral and foraging societies suggests that parental choice is stronger in the former, indicating that it had also been stronger in the later stages of human evolution which followed the agricultural revolution approximately 10,000 years ago (Apostolou 2010).

In the pre-industrial context, women are married relatively early, while before marriage they are chaperoned by their parents to prevent sexual adventures from taking place (Apostolou 2014). The husband receives from the parents the right to have sexual access to their daughter, a deal that is usually sealed with the payment of the bridewealth, which women have limited capacity to resist (Goody and Tambiah 1973)…

In sum, the anthropological and historical records of pre-industrial societies indicate that extensive free mate choice is an evolutionary novel phenomenon found predominantly in post-industrial societies. “

Keep in mind that in pre-industrial eras, women were kept pregnant for the majority of their life. This helped minimize her capacity for selecting other “outside” mates (because she was already pregnant or nursing) and ensured (at least to the he best of their knowledge) paternity to one man/father.

But as for the question, are we our sisters’ keeper? I would say, yes. We have seen what women do when they are left to their own devices and pretty soon, civilization as a whole will pay for it. None of this will change unless an ecological disaster strikes or men are forced to put their foot down and take control once more. My personal guess is that the former will happen first and then, inevitably, the latter will naturally occur.

Rollo: “Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic, and efficient.”
Answer: Sure it is IF you are a model beauty who will be at least an 8 at 30. You can cash in at 30 and get the best Beta man. BUT if you are not going to be an 8 (due to child birth, heavy carousel use) You MIGHT want to hedge that bet earlier in your 20s. Which should be the advice given by fathers to all their daughters.

“Rivelino had a good take on this on Twitter:
1 The woman is always the victim
2 Nothing is her fault
3 She is not responsible for her actions
4 A man is to blame
To which I’ll add a 5th: Any fault is always a ‘strength’.”
—Comment: Sounds pretty irrational to me. So why do we KEEP thinking that humans who can believe these 5 things are rational?

“The problem I see in assigning the blame of women’s behavior to men’s lack of control is that, presently, men have no real control nor does men’s concept of justice align with that of women.”
Answer: Er… some cultures that are actually growing in influence right now that would have different thinking on men not having control.

“There will never be some global Lysistrata where men organize in solidarity, promising not to fuck another woman until they comply with demands that would place the Masculine Imperative above that of the feminine’s. Our own biology guarantees it.”

Rollo: “So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in?”

Answer: Yep… after all Men are the ones who gave irrational actors the same rights as rational actors. Men were the only ones to vote once upon a time MEN gave women the same vote and the same say. Meanwhile certain people in the world are choosing a different path. Time will tell which way is best to organize society. But many people have speculated that by the mid 21st century Europe with be in it’s death throes due to Muslim women fertility and demographic shifts.
Idle wombs are the Devil’s workshop.

Watch this video about a female abortion clinic director selling fetal body part against federal law. Tell me this, if so many women care so little for babies, does it shock you that so many just don’t give a shit about men? She talks about it while eating at a nice restaurant and drinking wine. It’s sinister, like watching a Nazi talking about exterminating Jews.

I do NOT blame women or Hypergamy.
I put a100% blame on BETA MEN.
It is the willing beta men who feeds women’s Hypergamy.
That is why a 5.5 tall unattractive man will bust his ass working to make money to compensate.
Betas are the “crude”gas for hypergamt.

@doclove
I wouldn’t go so far as to say men are solely responsible for women’s unchecked hypergamy, but I definitely agree that it is in our best interests to act as a unit.
More men need to be educated and voice their opinions. The divorce industrial complex needs to be dismantled bit by bit. SJW publications like Gawker need to be attacked. Action needs to be taken both on the individual micro level and at the broader macro level.

I’m just going to spitball here for a bit. There will be a question or two at the end I would like everyone’s comment on.

Camille Paglia said that men created civilization as a defense against women’s sexual power. I didn’t understand that at all when I first read that in the mid ’80s, but, boy, I sure do now. Women are the guardians of the species, i.e., the genes. She is wired to pursue those attributes/traits/characteristics that embody, in her limbic opinion, the best manifestation of testosterone for her environment at the time. She cares nothing for honor, for integrity, because it doesn’t matter to her unborn great-grandchildren just how you obtained that piece of meat, or soft animal skin, just that you did. By violence, cunning, or fair trade, her limbic system cares not a whit. Nor does it care about the lives of men that are not “hers”. If a man is not now, or unlikely to become a father to her children, either via AF genetic benefits or BB provisioning to AF’s kids, he is irrelevant, and his death at the hands of her AF merely confirms that she made the correct choice, and if the situation is reversed, well, we have a post on that, too: War Brides. Recall that among the Yanomami those males that killed another had substantially more wives, mating opportunities, and children, and see how many murders in prison get proposals. Our DNA doesn’t care if it survives or prospers by murder, theft, fraud, or whatever. It just wants to survive, and it’s women’s job to keep it real.

The beta males created civilization in response. If resources bought sex, well there were going to be some that excelled at that, and the entrepreneurial gene cluster was born and nurtured. Eventually, a Tullock Contest Success Function created “marriage” out of promiscuous polygyny, when “marriage” and consistent paternity and fatherhood proved to provide enough superior provisioning and care giving to out breed/out compete the polygynists, even though the first to “marry” were at the bottom of the SMP.

Civilization is really only 2 things: property (private) and contract. All else evolves out of these two. Women’s feral nature and duplicitous sexual strategy of cuckoldry (AF/BB) has always been antithetical to this, even though they are the primary beneficiaries of civilization (see the archetypical SAHM, and the workaholic dad).

As the notions of property and contract, as well as the mechanisms for deciding disputes over such, were first manifesting, we observe that women were not allow to participate in these proceedings; they could not “testify”. Now, I’m sure that this is not because they had no testicles, obviously, the testicle standard was created specifically to keep women out of court, not the other way round.

Question: Did the ancients know something about women’s relationship to Integrity, Justice, and Truth that contemporary westerners don’t? Is Truth impossible for a woman? I know that if I were on a jury now, as opposed to before I ingested that bitter crimson pharmaceutical, I would weigh a woman’s testimony much differently now than before.

Rollo asks, “Are we presuming our concept of justice is one that’s universally common to that of women?” I didn’t see anyone take a good stab at this, and I would say “no, it isn’t”, but what is the alternative? As an intransigent libertarian anarcho-capitalist, this distresses me greatly.

This is where good old-fashioned Northern European moral individualism comes in very handy.
Is one adult responsible for the moral choices of another? NO
Are parents responsible for developing a moral sense in their children? YES
Do parents have to do so against the tide of culture and peer-groups at school? SURE
Do different moral standards apply to men and women? NO. (Morality is blind to the identity of actors.)
Is a female over 18 a legal adult? YES
Is she subject to the same moral standards as a man? YES
Does it matter if she thinks otherwise? NO
Is a woman who blames other people for her moral choices just making bad excuses because she can get away with it? FOR SURE
Does she care whether you buy her excuses? NO SIREE BOB. SHE SURELY DOES NOT.

Is it a shit test? Yes. If she behaves like that, she’s a shit.

Is there anything a man can do about a particular woman’s expediency? Well, try not marrying her. Or doing business with her. Or inviting her anywhere. Or friending her on Facebook. But by all means fuck her all you want. Getting laid has no value for her, after all, since “dick is abundant and low value”.

And as for the Lysistrata thing? It’s not sex that men would be withdrawing, it’s status. No marriage, no engagement. No Facebook photos. No parental visits and showing him off to her friends. All the sex he can wangle until her whining becomes unbearable. How difficult is that?

Talking of which, will you stop hating on MGTOWs? I know there’s a bunch of whiny kids abusing the term, but there’s a bunch of whiny kids abusing any term, including “husband” and “father”. A man can be married, have kids, and even visit his mother-in-law. As long as he does it on his terms, not some woman’s, then he’s Going His Own Way. Marriage and even sex are not defining of manhood: if all the women disappeared from the world tomorrow David Futrelle would still be a wuss and we would still be men. We need a word that describes men who have decided they don’t want women having squatting rights in their digs (staying overnight for sex is okay). ‘Bachelor’, even stretched to include divorced men, won’t do because it excludes married men who keep to their rules. It’s not about whether you get laid or not, it’s about whether you live life on your terms, not follow some BS script nobody really believes.

It looks like the manosphere and feminists finally found common ground.

Some of the manosphere.

My finger is pointed straight at biology and male:female sex ratios in an equalist, post-war society. Hypergamy evolved in a world where men died more frequently an in larger numbers, plus those same men almost universally performed tasks of provisioning that no amount of equal rights legislation could magically make a woman able to do. Now that there’s basically even numbers (or in some parts of the First World, more men), and women have been given the means to fully provision for themselves, Betas are no longer directly necessary to women in any way, form, or fashion. Women have a greater selection of men than they’ve ever had, and less need for the Beta Bux side of the equation than they’ve ever had.

You can’t blame Betas for any of it any more than you can blame any other class of men. We are all responsible for enacting our own standalone strategies for the proliferation of our own genes, regardless of sex. If your strategies fail, find new ones or die off. That’s how it’s always worked.

My gut says yes, but I’ve recently seen things that contest that feeling. I’ll explain. As the superior sex, it is your responsibility to lead and guide those under you. If the Red Pill way truly has the man as the leader/head of the relationship then how is it that we expect him to not also be held responsible for the failings in his weaker counterparts?

Do you not blame the parents when a kid acts like a spoiled shit? Ofcourse you do.

However I recently watched a video(part of the gender studies is nonsense videos) that talked about adoptions of children and how much influence the adoptive parents had over their kids. The answer? The vast majority of the time the child’s IQ would correlate to the blood parents not the ones that raised the child. So this brings up an interesting question. As a man who is in a relationship, you are essentially adopting a child from another family. So you have no control over what genetics they have so is it your fault when that child turns out to be an asshole?

I think honestly I’d still argue yes, because you chose that asshole child in the first place.

I genuinely am interested to see what people’s answers are to this question

So while this is an illustration of men’s deductive pragmatism in their adapting to the SMP, it’s also an illustration of how that adaptation can work against men’s best interests. Between the 80s, 90s and into the early 2000s this adaptation involved men following women’s lead to systematically turn conventional, positive masculinity into ridiculous or gay-associations of “macho-ness”. Later, defining the very idea of masculinity would progress from ambiguousness to women being the sole authority of what masculinity should mean to a man.

Beta men are now the (primary) victims of their adaptive sexual strategy – they ‘out-supported’ and ‘out-identified’ with the feminine amongst each other to the point that women no longer need the support, and now despise the identification.

Still it’s hard to say “it’s mostly their fault” because they were only following the most deductive, pragmatic path they believed would make them more desirable. Their adaptation, on a root mental level, wasn’t something consciously or collectively planned – it just made sense then.

I suppose the irony is that all the people who felt evolution can no longer touch humans (I used to be one of them when I was much younger) are suddenly finding that it can. Not to mention it’s just as cruel and unforgiving to the losers as it ever was.

For those who were wanting to participate in The Man Table on this Sunday the 19th at 16:00 Central, you’ll need to download a copy of the Teamspeak 3 Client for your appropriate operating system. Please make sure to use headphones instead of speakers if you wish to participate with a microphone.

The server address to connect to will be neo.themantable.net and you can just use the same handle you use here to make it easier for folks to identify who you are. No password is needed, but I will be moderating things as needed.

@Seven Dials
Agree 100 percent. Even women are saying the same thing. Not just anti-feminists either. So if rational women are saying they have responsibility and agency, why does the manosphere continue to blame men for all of society’s ills?
I personally don’t want to be shamed by the feminists as well as my own camp.

Having a mission in life, integrity, honor, honesty, being intelligent, being funny, being nice to your mother and bla bla bla….doesn’t mean a jack shit for most women unless they‘r looking for a tool. The only thing that really matter to them are pussy tingles. If you can not give them that through your look and demeanour (and rough fuck) , you‘r fucked. Nothing you do can compensate for this lack and women can‘t respect you.

I am somewhat new to red pill truths and I have a question that I can’t seem to answer myself. Just recently I went on a vacation and I couldn’t help but stop and glance at some of the couples that I saw walking the beach or out in public. I saw really attractive girls, ages anywhere between 17-19, possibly younger, I don’t know, with guys who I and others that were with me, did not think we’re near the attractiveness of the girls they were with. And it’s not just when I’m on vacation that I see this. Now is it that they have an alpha mentality, or is there something more than that? Thank you for reading.

Rule of Wrist – “I would posit that men are the gatekeepers of violence. It says much about modern society that almost all societal control of violence has been stripped away from men as individuals and given to the state.”

This is almost exactly correct. I’d go further and say men are the gate keepers of life because men hold the natural monopoly on violence. Men also created the artificial state monopoly on violence. By doing so they were freed to channel their violence against their environment in the quest to obtain regular and predictable access to food, shelter and the other needs of basic survival.

What needs to be clearly understood is that man forgoing violence is giving a gift to everyone he doesn’t hit and every woman he doesn’t rape. The level of personal safety in our society has completely obscured this. We are now faced with an odd contradiction of saying don’t be mad at women for being what they are, and yet castigating the man who slaps an unruly woman when he actually being what he is.

It’s the ultimate form of sexism: woman you can’t rise above your biological programming, but men you must rise above yours. BTW I actually believe this. I expect nothing from woman in terms of them being other than what they are born as because they aren’t really capable of much else. However, I still expect men to strive toward being better than their inborn natures because I believe they are capable of doing so.

Can you also list alternative server addresses like the “number one”? Last time Teamspeak didn’t accept themantable.net server name and let me in.

@ ScribblerG

Sorry man, I do agree I am being obtuse. My brain is a bit uncharacteristically foggy yesterday and today (due to over-stimulation on the weekend). Since we got our wish and more commentators have come out of the woodwork and have been making fantastic comments in this thread I going to shut the fuck up for a bit.

You said “To me, the only issue is whether a comment is adding value and moving the dialog along in interesting ways. The ‘burden’ is to be engaging.”